• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the best foreign policy principle?

What is the best foreign policy principle?

  • Aggressive foreign policy

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Interventionist foreign policy

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Non-interventionist foreign policy

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • Isolationist foreign policy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other foreign policy...please explain.

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • Total voters
    15
reefedjib

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I would assert that an intelligent, interventionist foreign policy is appropriate. We will use our power, influence and money to promote and protect our interests abroad. We will help our allies. We are for international organizations within limits. We will not make our laws subordinate to international law. We will strive to make international organizations operate more effectively. We are for the establishment of an Organization of Democratic States to promote democracy in the world. On the principle of war, we will act in defense of aggression, whether ongoing or anticipated, toward us or an ally. Furthermore, we will act on humanitarian interventions when it is in our interest. If necessary, we will act unilaterally.
 
Other foreign policy...please explain.
Click to expand...

"Depends on the circumstances" foreign policy. The others are all far too rigid.
 
Pragmatism over dogma foreign policy. Every situation has its own solution that you need to tailor to the circumstances. Even action should be taken with the cost-benefit analysis in mind. Most importantly, making up for your lack of self esteem by acting "tough" and following political correctness are not foreign policy goals.
 
I totally understand where the two of you are coming from. Clearly every circumstance is unique and a cost-benefit analysis done. The goal is to be pragmatic. In that vein, the options I listed I interpret as the high-water mark of foreign policy. You are not binding us to always follow that course of action. What is the limit?

Given the right conditions, how aggressive are you interested in seeing us be?
  • isolationist (no situation is bad enough to cause us to reach past our borders)
  • non-interventionist (we can have a robust foreign policy, but only under attack will we go to war - no humanitarian interventions)
  • interventionist (we will have a robust foreign policy and we will get involved in advantageous humanitarian interventions)
  • aggressive (we will be aggressive in our foreign policy and will attack when it is in our interest without a humanitarian intervention justification).
 
Last edited:
I'd support unilateral aggressive foreign policy in some cases, but it would require pretty dire circumstances for it to worth it. In my analysis, such a war is quite unlikely to happen, but its important to be prepared if it does. I could probably give you a better picture if you referenced hypothetical scenarios or past conflicts.
 
rathi said:
I'd support unilateral aggressive foreign policy in some cases, but it would require pretty dire circumstances for it to worth it. In my analysis, such a war is quite unlikely to happen, but its important to be prepared if it does. I could probably give you a better picture if you referenced hypothetical scenarios or past conflicts.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Can you provide a historical reference for unilateral aggressive foreign policy? Say the Mexican-American War?
 
reefedjib said:
I totally understand where the two of you are coming from. Clearly every circumstance is unique and a cost-benefit analysis done. The goal is to be pragmatic. In that vein, the options I listed I interpret as the high-water mark of foreign policy. You are not binding us to always follow that course of action. What is the limit?

Given the right conditions, how aggressive are you interested in seeing us be?
  • isolationist (no situation is bad enough to cause us to reach past our borders)
  • non-interventionist (we can have a robust foreign policy, but only under attack will we go to war - no humanitarian interventions)
  • interventionist (we will have a robust foreign policy and we will get involved in advantageous humanitarian interventions)
  • aggressive (we will be aggressive in our foreign policy and will attack when it is in our interest without a humanitarian intervention justification).
Click to expand...

I guess of those choices, "interventionist" is the one that describes me the best. Although I can think of plenty of exceptions to that principle.
 
Kandahar said:
"Depends on the circumstances" foreign policy. The others are all far too rigid.
Click to expand...

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1285-3d-dinosaur.png
 
Kandahar said:
I guess of those choices, "interventionist" is the one that describes me the best. Although I can think of plenty of exceptions to that principle.
Click to expand...

Tell me a little about your exceptions. Just because it is your principle, it doesn't mean you are bound to using it in every situation.
 
Robert J. Art is one of my favorite strategists. In his book, "A Grand Strategy for America", he outlines a particular strategy called "Selective Engagement".

I prefer this choice, instead of others that he lists as viable options:

-Dominion, Collective Security and Containment
-Isolationism and Offshore Balancing

Selective Engagement is a "shaping strategy"; with emphasis on the retention of key alliances and foward military presence in strategic locations in order to mold political, military and economic configurations that are in place or developing.

The idea behind this particular approach is "What is good for America is good for the World."
 
Interesting. Can you provide a historical reference for unilateral aggressive foreign policy? Say the Mexican-American War?
Click to expand...

The Mexican-War was about expanding our borders, something which doesn't really apply today. More likely scenarios would be similar to the naval conflicts between European powers over control of the seas and the resulting trade during the age of sail. For example, I would likely support military action if Panama closed the canal to us. Another hypothetical would be India becoming embroiled in a war with China, and trying to blockade them from the sea.
 
I favor a general outlook of non-interventionism, with a dose of realpolitik pragmatism. For the most part, what happens within the the borders of other sovereign nations doesn't affect our national interests enough to warrant the sacrifice of national treasure and blood or the risk of unintented blowback consequences. I am strongly opposed to humanitarian missions. They rarely serve our national interest, often create resentment among the people we are supposedly helping or questions of why are we here and not there, plus they put our troops in harms way for no real gain or strategic purpose.

That said, if some threat does emerge that would warrant interventionist actions, America should be free to act, unilaterally and pre-emptively if necessary.
 
As my Ole Pappy use to say--"Son, if you can just learn to mind yer own damn business, you will do fine in this world"----I have yet to find fault in His words of wisdom.
 
reefedjib said:
Given the right conditions, how aggressive are you interested in seeing us be?
  • isolationist (no situation is bad enough to cause us to reach past our borders)
  • non-interventionist (we can have a robust foreign policy, but only under attack will we go to war - no humanitarian interventions)
  • interventionist (we will have a robust foreign policy and we will get involved in advantageous humanitarian interventions)
  • aggressive (we will be aggressive in our foreign policy and will attack when it is in our interest without a humanitarian intervention justification).
Click to expand...

Hmm. Based on your original post, I was thinking interventionist, but based on this I'd have to say that I'm an advocate of aggressive foreign policy.

Of course, you're leaving out people who think we should be involved in non-advantageous humanitarian actions, who may or may not be overly concerned with our strategic interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom